The Fight for Infant Sleep: A Small Business vs. Federal Regulators

WASHINGTON, D.C. – February 12, 2026 – A legal battle with significant implications for small businesses and federal regulatory power has reached a critical juncture. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) has formally asked a D.C. federal court to rule against the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), demanding the agency retract a public safety warning that has pushed its client, Dreamland Baby Co., “to the brink of going out of business.”

The motion for summary judgment, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is the latest escalation in a contentious dispute over the safety of weighted infant sleep sacks. NCLA argues the CPSC’s warning against these products is baseless, unlawful, and has caused catastrophic harm to the woman-owned small business that once helped, by its own count, over a million families.

“Fundamental administrative law requires CPSC to explain why it did what it did,” said Kara Rollins, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA, in a statement. “Since CPSC refuses to explain, the district court should make the agency remove the unsubstantiated statement.”

A Warning That Rocked an Industry

The controversy ignited when the CPSC, particularly then-Commissioner Richard Trumka, launched a public campaign against weighted infant sleep products. In a unilateral statement issued on official letterhead in April 2024, Trumka declared, “Beware: Weighted Infant Swaddles and Blankets Are Unsafe for Sleep,” and urged retailers to stop selling them. The CPSC’s official “Safe Sleep” guidance was also informally updated to reflect this position.

The impact was immediate and devastating for manufacturers. Major retailers including Amazon, Target, Walmart, and Babylist pulled the products from their shelves. Dreamland Baby and another manufacturer, Nested Bean, reported sales plummeting by over 50% in the aftermath. For Dreamland Baby, a company founded by a mother who developed the product for her own child, the CPSC’s actions felt like a death sentence delivered without a trial.

This aggressive public warning came despite the CPSC’s own commission voting 3-1 in November 2023 against pursuing a mandatory safety standard for the products. At the time, the agency’s leadership stated that it had not yet conducted sufficient research to justify a formal rulemaking process. This apparent contradiction is at the heart of NCLA’s legal challenge.

The Science of Safe Sleep

The CPSC and its supporters maintain that their warnings are grounded in legitimate safety concerns. The agency points to recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and, most notably, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). In 2022, the AAP updated its safe sleep guidelines to explicitly advise against weighted sleep products for infants.

Medical experts aligned with the AAP voice several concerns. They argue that the added weight, however minimal, could compress an infant’s non-rigid rib cage, potentially obstructing breathing, lowering oxygen levels, and affecting heart rate. Another major concern is that the products might inhibit a baby’s ability to arouse themselves from sleep, a natural protective mechanism against Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). The AAP has consistently stated that there is no peer-reviewed evidence proving the products are safe for use in an unobserved, home-sleep environment.

NCLA and Dreamland Baby counter that these fears are overblown and not supported by data specific to their products. “Weighted sleep sacks are beloved products by parents and caregivers,” stated NCLA President Mark Chenoweth. “The ‘weight’ involved is about the same as a slice of processed cheese.” Dreamland Baby notes that it has a medical board and is conducting its own clinical trial, though it has faced criticism for not having such a study completed before bringing its products to market in 2018.

The Anatomy of a Lawsuit

The core of NCLA’s lawsuit rests on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires federal agency actions to not be “arbitrary and capricious.” The lawsuit alleges the CPSC violated this standard by issuing a damning public warning without following its own procedures or providing a reasonable, evidence-based explanation. NCLA contends the CPSC blindly relied on recommendations from the CDC and NIH, which in turn accepted the AAP’s position without independent investigation.

While a D.C. district court initially dismissed several of Dreamland’s claims, it crucially allowed the “arbitrary and capricious” charge to proceed, stating that it could not be resolved without reviewing the CPSC's administrative record. This decision signaled that the court saw merit in questioning the procedural soundness of the agency's actions.

The lawsuit argues that by circumventing the formal rulemaking process and engaging in a public pressure campaign, the CPSC wielded its power unfairly, violating the due process protections designed to ensure federal information is accurate and not misleading. When Dreamland Baby formally requested a retraction in July 2024, the CPSC denied it, further cementing the battle lines.

Congress and Consumers Weigh In

The dispute has drawn attention from beyond the courtroom. In August 2024, Democratic lawmakers introduced the “Safeguarding Infants from Dangerous Sleep (SIDS) Act,” a bill that would explicitly ban weighted infant sleep products. The legislation is backed by influential consumer advocacy groups, including Consumer Reports, Kids In Danger, and the Consumer Federation of America, who argue the products are “inherently dangerous” and that a legislative ban is necessary to provide clarity for exhausted parents.

Simultaneously, Dreamland Baby faces pressure from consumers themselves. A class-action lawsuit was filed in California in June 2024, alleging the company deceptively marketed its products as safe despite being aware of the warnings from the pediatric and regulatory communities. The confluence of regulatory pressure, legislative action, and civil litigation paints a complex picture, leaving many parents confused and caught in the middle.

As the district court prepares to consider the NCLA’s motion for summary judgment, the case represents more than a single company’s fight for survival. It is a profound test of the limits of regulatory authority, the standard of evidence required for public safety warnings, and the balance between protecting consumers and preserving enterprise. The outcome will inevitably shape how federal agencies communicate risk and how businesses navigate the powerful currents of public regulation.